PC 72-218. f ~ ~
RESOLUTION N0. PC7-- 19
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF P,NAHIEIM
RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANANEIM THAT
PETITION FOFc RF.CI.ASSIFICATION N0. ~2--~3-1U BE DISAPPROV$D
WHEREAS, the City Plenning Cas~~ais;~:ih„ ef the Citv a£ AnshaS~n ~`i~ ;eceIve a vec;fir,! Petition f~r F.e:
class'.zlctition from Wt1QDI'!Ai? .i~ditM:C.f;,: iitii~iPAnY; 3=A~: Fi~vp;_ ~.r UF;!•'<<., ~.,r~s Angeles, Cali,`;;rnit+
90027, Owner; JOP.N k<<riN.SCr'xi, i~pRap£BI}~.b Houein~ Syaz-~;s~s~; dn~s:Ra3~ated, 9501 "; : ath
Harbor Boulevard, Sante Az~e, Caiicoir.ie 927Q4, Agent ue t~~~z•~ai:1 zea.i nroper'~': aituat•-;:
in the City of Anaheim, County o£ Orange, State of Ca3i~fc'c!?La, ~aV(..~•5~er; ~y That ~arcAon
of t~:e Southwest quarter of the Northeast quarter af Seczirn ~i, To~a`~:{:rr a South, "•;:=~~e
10 Weat in the Rancho San Juan Cajon De Santa Ane, ae per map recnrded Kta o;;,•~i; 57.,: ;
10 of Miscellaneous Maps, in the office of che QoanEy Recvrder bf said Cbur.iy, aca~::;ii:.ed
as foliowa: Beginning at the interaection of the centerline of Cerritos Avenue ;::.°:h t~
line parallel w~th and Easterly 70.00 feet from the Weat line of said Suuthwest qi::.~!:r,.z:
thence North 0° 09' 34" Weat 1358.12 LeeC along said p+.rallel line to the Southwes~~ ~or.-
ner of Lot 136 in Tract No. ;.981, as per map re~orded in book 67, pages 26 to 29 inc.zu-
sive of oaid Miscellaneous Maps, thence along the baundary of said tract fo2lowing courses;
North 89 50' 26" East 90.00 fee:, South 0° 09' 34" East 25.49 feet, North 89° 44' 44"
East 902.52 feet, North 0° 15' 16" West 22.00 feet and North 89° 44' 44" East 256.00 feet
to the center line of Walnut Street, thence South 0° 15' 16" East 1360.27 feet along eaid
center line to said center line of Cerritos Avenue; thence North 89° 59' 18" West 1250.59
feet to the point of beginning
; end
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the City Hell in the City of MeSelm
on Auguttt 21, 1972et 7: 30 o'clock P.M. notice of said public hearing heving been duly given es required by
law end in accordence with the provisions of the Maheim Mun;clpel Code, Chepter 18.72, to heer end consider
evidence for and against seid proposed reclassification end te investigate andmeke findings endrecommendetione
in connection therewith; end
WHEREAS, seid Commission, efter due i:;spection, investigation, and study made by itself end in its be-
half, and efter due consideration of ell evidence end reports ofEered et seid hearing, does find and determine the
following fects:
].. Thst the petitioner proposes a reclessif[cetion of the ebove described property from the R-A,
AGRICiTLTURAL, ZONE to the R-3, MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE.
2. That the proposed reclaseiFication 1s not inl~COnformence with the lend use
use designation for the entire property as depicted on the General Plan.
3. That the petitioner has failed to show that the proposed secZassificati~n
would be in the best intereste of the health, safety, and g4neral welfare of the
community and in particular thia area.
4. That there has been no land uae change in the area to warrant favorable
conaideration of an increase in density for the low-medium denaity portion of this
pro perty,
5. 1'hat there was no basic difference in a planned residential development and a
condominium as it is known to AnahEim, and upon viewing the exieting PRD's in Anaheim
with densities of up to 12 unite per acre, to approve the proposed recleeaification
would be granting a privileg~ not enjoyed by uther developera of multiple family planned
residential developmenta,
6. That the traffic projectione of seven trips per day for eact~ unit would result
in an increase in traffic for Cerritoe Avenue of 33-1/3% and Walnut Street of 20% based
upon the traffic count in 1971, and which dtd not include the increase i.n traffic due to
the projected compietion of the Dianeyland. Hotel convention center,
7. That evidence preaented would indicate ttzat there ahould be a trend to a less-
ening of deneity for this aree rather than increasing the denaity, in order not to
further congeat this area.
S. Ttcat 10 persona sppeared representing 35 persone present in the Council Chamber
in oppouition; and that one letter and petitione signed by 66 property owners was
presented all in oppositien.
1
,. J
~
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Anehelm City Plenning Commissian does hereby recommend
to the City Council of the City of Ansheim thet subJect Petition for Reclessification be denied on the basis of the
aEorementioned findings.
THE FORFGOING RESOLUTION is signed end epproved by me this 31ot day of August, 1972.
ANAHEIM CITY
ATTEST:
SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Ann Krebs, Secretary of the City Plenning Commission of the City of Aneheim, do hereby certify thet the fore-
going resolution wes passed end adopted at a meeting of the City Plenning Commission of the City of Aneheim, held on
August 21, 1972, at 7: 3~'clock P.M., by the following vote of the members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Herbat.
IN ~4[TNESS WHEREOF, I heve heceunto set my hend this 31st dey of August, 1972,
SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PL?.NNTNG COMMISSION
RES~LUTION NO.PC72-218
R'l-D -2-